Co-written by Ashley Breton, Emma Keating, Alison Kendrick, and Karen McMurray.
The iceberg analogy has long been used to illustrate that what we can see at the surface is not always what it seems. The same can be said about Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which Bates (2015) calls “…the most disruptive of all technologically-based innovations in higher education, and as a result… the most controversial” (p. 166). While this statement may seem presumptuous, the early promise of MOOCs led Sebastian Thrun, the founder of Udacity, to famously claim that by 2022, there would only be 10 institutions globally offering higher education (Weller, 2020). While that has obviously not come to fruition, the emergence of MOOCs remains a significant contribution to the educational technology landscape.
A Bit about MOOCs
A MOOC is a free distance learning program that is designed for the participation of large numbers of geographically dispersed learners via the web (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2016). As stated by Bates (2015), “the term MOOCs was used for the first time in 2008 for a course offered by the Extension Division of the University of Manitoba” (p. 168). The course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was designed by George Siemens, Stephen Downes, and Dave Cormier and had 2200 students enrolled in its free online version. Later in 2011, Stanford University professors Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig developed the MOOC, The Introduction to AI, which had 160,000 enrollments. By 2021, MOOCs had reached 220 million learners through providers such as Coursera, edX, and Udacity (Shah, 2021).
Strengths and Weaknesses
Some of the strengths of MOOCs include: how they deliver high-quality content from elite universities, they are accessible which allows them to be shared globally, and they force institutions to re-evaluate their attitudes to online learning (Bates, 2015). Some of the weaknesses of MOOCs include: low participation rates, with less than 10% of MOOCs being completed (Murphy et al, 2014), cultural imperialism, where ⅔ of MOOCs are developed in English-speaking countries (Trucano, 2013 as cited in Montbello, 2019, p. 219), and copyright restrictions (Bates, 2015).
Critical Research Process
Our team chose to explore MOOCs as our technology based on their accessibility and our overall familiarity with MOOCs. Early on, we had discussions about each of our previous experiences with MOOCs, which ranged from one team member having engaged with a MOOC platform without knowing what a MOOC was, to one team member who is currently enrolled in one. While each of our experiences left us with a basic understanding of MOOCs, we felt it was somewhat of a superficial understanding and wanted to expand our knowledge on the deeper implications of MOOCs.
We then engaged in some initial research on MOOCs to become familiar with the current literature, but we agreed that research alone could only teach us so much; we wanted to experience the technology first-hand. We decided to enroll and participate in a MOOC in the hopes that we could make connections to our research. We selected “The Science of Well-Being”, a course developed by Yale University and offered through Coursera, the largest MOOC provider with over 97 million students (Coursera, SEC 2021 Annual Report). “The Science of Well-Being” was one of Coursera’s most popular courses during the COVID-19 pandemic, and is adapted from the “Psychology and the Good Life” taught by Yale University professor Dr. Laurie Santos, who also teaches “The Science of Well-Being”. The course is made up of a series of videos, readings, and a quiz per week for 10 weeks. It also has discussion forums for each week’s topic, as well as, ones to ask the professor questions and to give course feedback. A course certificate is available for students who earn a passing grade on each quiz.
Our experience with “The Science of Well-Being” and our initial research began to reveal some interesting elements of MOOCs throughout their history, including how MOOCs have evolved in their design. According to Bates (2014), cMOOCs were the first version of MOOCs and are based on connectivist pedagogy associated with a community of practice and are co-created by participants through the exchange of prior knowledge and experiences. Later, xMOOCs emerged, which are now the most common type of MOOC. xMOOCs are based on behaviourist pedagogy and follow the traditional university lecture-based model. Typically, they are developed by institutions and licensed to MOOC providers, but they are becoming increasingly supported by corporations. For example, “AT&T provided $2 million to Georgia Institute of Technology to fund a MOOC master’s degree in computer science” (Schatsky, 2015, Chapter 4).
The tension to reach profit goals within “The Science of Well-Being” became evident as we progressed through the course. We also took note of the didactic nature of the course, which was exacerbated by the lack of connection points beyond teacher-to-student communication. While there was little connectivism in the course itself, the look of connectivism was seemingly staged with a student audience during the lectures.
Much like the analogy of the iceberg, some of the ways we understood MOOCs before embarking on this journey were above the surface, but our research and experiences have revealed aspects of MOOCs that are below the surface. These aspects have helped us narrow and shape our individual critical issues.
Critical Issues
Based on our research, we have chosen to examine the following critical issues in relation to MOOCs:
Ashley – The impact of universal design on MOOC learning environments and inclusivity
Emma – The factors that affect MOOC completion rates, and how to increase student participation and motivation
Karen – How MOOCs contribute to or detract from the democratization of education, focusing on openness.
Alison – The relationship between MOOCs and corporate training
Conclusion
As our team continues to comb through the literature about MOOCs and our critical issues, we have developed research questions to help guide us, and have documented our personal observations and learning experiences. As we continue this journey, we endeavour to align our experiences with MOOCs and “The Science of Well-Being” to the current literature with the intention of making meaningful connections to our critical issues.
5 Key References
1. Dodson, M. N., Kitburi, K., & Berge, Z. L. (2015). Possibilities for MOOCs in corporate training and development. Performance Improvement, 54(10), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21532
2. Hodges, C. B. (2008). Self-efficacy in the context of online learning environments: A review of the literature and directions for research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3‐4), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20001
3. Littlejohn, A. & Hood, N. (2018) Reconceptualising learning in the digital age: The [Un] democratizing Potential of MOOCs. Springer.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-981-10-8893-3.pdf
4. Murphy, J., Williams, A., & Lennox, A. (2014). MOOCs in VET and higher education. 22nd National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference ‘No Frills’: refereed papers. Australian College of Applied Education. 76-82.
https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0025/16765/22nd-no-frills-2728.pdf#page=78
5. Tehari, M., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2019). Towards culturally inclusive MOOCs: A design-based approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU), 597-604. DOI: 10.5220/0007715805970604
References
Bates, T. (October 13, 2014). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: philosophy and practice. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. Moderated by Tony Bates, Research Associate, Contact North.
https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/
Bates, T. (2015). Chapter 5 MOOCs. In Teaching in a Digital Age. Pressbooks. Retrieved from https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/part/chapter-7-moocs/
Coursera 2021 Annual Report 10-K (n.d.). US Securities & Exchange Commission https://sec.report/Document/0000950170-22-002807/#item1_business
Kaplan, A. & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster, Business Horizons, 59(4), 441-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008
Montebello, M. (2019). The development of massive scale learning and its implications for the digital learner. In Handbook of Research on Digital Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=XVSzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=MOOC+and+cultural+imperialism&source=bl&ots=IW44zcsOA2&sig=ACfU3U3qS8nGSdIOdPzWWkWWtAOS9Ke6bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipmcTi3cj3AhUipIkEHWVVCBMQ6AF6BAgsEAM#v=onepage&q=MOOC%20and%20cultural%20imperialism&f=false
Murphy, J., Williams, A., & Lennox, A. (2014). MOOCs in VET and higher education. 22nd National Vocational Education and Training Research Conference ‘No Frills’: refereed papers. Australian College of Applied Education. 76-82.
https://www.ncver.edu.au/__data/assets/file/0025/16765/22nd-no-frills-2728.pdf#page=78
Schatsky, D. (2015). Signals for strategists: Sensing emerging trends in business and technology. RosettaBooks. Retrieved May 9, 2022, from https://royalroads.skillport.com/skillportfe/main.action?path=summary/BOOKS/112116#summary/BOOKS/RW$65649:_ss_book:112116
Shah, D. (2021, December 28). A decade of MOOCs: A review of stats and trends for large-scale online courses in 2021 – Edsurge News. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-12-28-a-decade-of-moocs-a-review-of-stats-and-trends for-large-scale-online-courses-in-2021
Weller, M. (2020). Chapter 19: 2012 Massive Open Online Courses. 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
Thank you for this great post and your presentation yesterday. I had really been looking forward to this presentation, as it was a learning event with which I had already interacted. I was curious to see your thoughts on it and I was not disappointed! You’ve brought up some really interesting things to consider about MOOCs and I look forward to seeing what you all find in your individual research on critical issues.
That said, I forgot to ask (or maybe you said and I missed it), how many of you have completed your chosen MOOC? We did discuss the fact that most participants never complete a MOOC, so I can guess, but I’m curious! Also, given the other learning technologies that we see now, what do you see (initially, at least) as the future of MOOCs in their current form?
Hi, Corie! Thank you for your comments and questions. To address your first question with regard to the current status of our MOOC completion: to date, not one of us has finished it. However, “The Science of Well-being” is a 10 week course, so I don’t expect most of us to reach the end (although I personally would like to).
Now to your second question: what do you see as the future of MOOCs in their current form?
Our team suspects Virtual Reality (VR) might be the future of MOOCs. Two of the biggest complaints about MOOCs that we came across were: 1) lack of teacher presence, and 2) feelings of isolation. In response to this, some institutions have been attempting to incorporate VR into MOOC design and delivery to mitigate issues related to the absense of direct human to human contact. VR offers the potential to increase online interaction and the feeling of presence by immersing the user in a virtual world that resembles face-to-face reality. Furthermore, as working and learning in a post-pandemic landscape, will likely remain remote (at least for the forseeable future), it is reasonable to assume that VR will be the most likely technology to enhance how learners learn and engage with MOOCs in the future.
It’s worth noting that dominant MOOC providers have also joined the VR bandwagon. Late last year, Facebook’s Metaverse (a VR technology company) announced their partnership with Coursera and EdX.
For more information on that, take a look at the following article:
Young, J. (2021, October 29). As Facebook Changes Name to Meta, Company Wants to Pull Education Into Its ‘Metaverse’. Edsurge. Retrieved from:
https://www.edsurge.com/amp/news/2021-10-29-as-facebook-changes-name-to-meta-education-is-part-of-new-vision
Thank you for such an interesting and engaging presentation on MOOCs. I really appreciated the background and context you provided.
I am curious to know if certificates from MOOCs are recognized or given equivalent value as courses offered at HE learning institutions. If not, what do you perceive as the barrier(s)?
Thanks,
Hi Ashley,
Comprehensive and informing post as always.
What recommendations do you have to make MOOCs and their authors a more representative voice of the world’s many cultures?
I am curious about this reoccurring theme in our cohort that all things western are somehow insufficient.
As per Karen’s blog, “post secondary education increases [are] mainly driven by international student registrations” (Usher 2019, as cited by McMurray, 2022), and North America has been the destination of people seeking change and opportunity for the last 400 years.
As an economist, I am always seeking the key factor.
What makes MOOCs and other intellectual properties of North America inherently insufficient? Is it that they were published by an organization residing in North America? If so, are the authors of this content not a representative sample of the culturally diverse population of North America? Therefore, wouldn’t the contributions of North Americans represent a celebration of the world’s knowledge?
What would need to change for MOOCs or other intellectual property to be deemed non-western? Is it as simple as changing the address of the publishing houses?
Thank you for your consideration,
Ben
References:
McMurray, K. (2022). Did the pandemic fast track the demise of MOOCs?. https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0212/did-the-pandemic-fast-track-the-demise-of-moocs/
Usher, A., (2019). The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2019. Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
http://higheredstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HESA-Spec-2019-Final_v2.pdf
Thank you so much for your interesting questions, Ben! I will attempt to address your first question: “What recommendations do you have to make MOOCs and their authors a more representative voice of the world’s many cultures?” in hopes that it may shed light on some other questions posed in your comment.
I would like to start by stating that most existing instructional design paradigms neglect cultural diversity and suppose all educational experiences are the same, even those of underrepresented learners (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000). As a result, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners have been systematically excluded from Western education systems found in developed countries like Canada and the United States (ABLE Research Consultants, 2020). Sadly, MOOCs are no exception.
So you might then ask: Why is knowledge of learners’ cultural and linguistic differences important in MOOC design?
Well, to put it simply… Neither knowledge, pedagogy, nor technology are neutral (Altbach, 2014; Houlden & Veletsianos, 2019).
Most current MOOCs are based on the dominant Western academic approaches — with the majority of MOOCs developed by Western universities in Western, English-speaking countries. This means they reflect the traditions, methodological orientations, and teaching philosophies of particular learning systems. While designers who develop MOOC courses are no doubt motivated by a desire to do the best job possible and to cater to a wide audience, they are to a significant extent bound by their own academic orientations and context. This can lead to something called “cultural imperialism”, as mentioned in our team blog post (Montebello, 2019).
To effectively engage a global audience, I believe MOOC designers need to embrace cultural and linguistic diversity and try to resonate with learners beyond their predominantly Western-English speaking context. So, back to your initial question: “What recommendations do you have to make MOOCs and their authors a more representative voice of the world’s many cultures?”
One idea is through the application of universal design.
Universal design is defined as: “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Mace, 1997, as cited in Marrone et al., 2013, p. 542). Utilizing the principles of universal design helps designers place the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students at the center of the design process (Marrone et al., 2013). This may seem minor, but it sends a strong message to learners from diverse cultural contexts that the course is designed with them in mind and that they are welcome.
A handful of recommendations for more inclusive design practice include:
1) Design delivers both imagery and verbal descriptions, giving participants sufficient context to understand the content
2) Cultural-specific language (like colloquialisms) is not used or used sparingly
3) Interface is easy to navigate and provides alternatives to different learner types.
4) Videos are embedded with bullet points or key terms that summarize or highlight the significant parts of the lecture, making it easier to understand for non-native English speakers and learners who may come across new subject-related terminology
5) Non-western perspectives and relevant experiences are included in the course content and activities
There are some who might argue (especially from a sheer economics perspective) that culturally and linguistically responsive design is not sustainable and does not serve the individual or society in the long run. Some might even say this is taking inclusivity to the extreme. Yes, in some sense maybe, but I think it all boils down to common inclusion as an integrated part of the education system, whether you are a CLD learner or not.
I hope this answers your question/questions. I want to thank you again for taking the time to write such an insightful and thought-provoking comment. It allowed me to embark on an interesting thought journey.
Cheers!
References:
ABLE Research Consultants (2020). Removing barriers to online learning through a teaching and learning lens. BCcampus. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Report_Removing-Barriers-to-Online-Learning-Through-a-Teaching-and-Learning-Lens.pdf
Altbach, P. (2014). MOOCs as NeoColonialism: Who controls knowledge?. International Higher Education, 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2014.75.5426
Houlden, S. & Veletsianos, G. (2019). An analysis of flexible learning and flexibility over the last 40 years of Distance Education. Distance Education, 40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2019.1681893
Marrone, M., Mantai, L. & Luzia, K. (2013). MOOCs – what’s cultural inclusion got to do with it? In H. Carter, M. Gosper and J. Hedberg (Eds.), Electric Dreams. Ascilite. 541- 545. https://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney13/program/papers/Marrone.pdf
McLoughlin, C. & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58-72. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f13/6c51ed5718b020ec5cd9c5db33d4981991ad.pdf
Montebello, M. (2019). The development of massive scale learning and its implications for the digital learner. In Handbook of Research on Digital Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=XVSzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=MOOC+and+cultural+imperialism&source=bl&ots=IW44zcsOA2&sig=ACfU3U3qS8nGSdIOdPzWWkWWtAOS9Ke6bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipmcTi3cj3AhUipIkEHWVVCBMQ6AF6BAgsEAM#v=onepage&q=MOOC%20and%20cultural%20imperialism&f=false
Hi Ashley,
Fantastic post. Well-researched, and I hope the response was helpful in formulating your response.
Indeed, making products as valuable as possible for the greatest number of prospective customers/stakeholders is a helpful guide to making all learning spaces effective. Please note, however, that this view is actually western at its core and rooted in the individualistic and transformative tenets of the Abrahamic texts.
Thank you for highlighting the work of McLoughlin & Oliver (2000). I am curious to explore that paper and further quantitative data that supports your thesis.
Kinds regards
Ben
Hi Ben,
Thank you so much for your reply. But, I tend to disagree. I do not think inclusivity is a predominately Western or “Abrahamic” approach. Instead, I would argue it is an effective evidenced-based approach to online course design and a human right. Indeed, inclusive education is a win-win for everyone. It benefits culturally and linguistically diverse MOOC learners because they feel they belong as they connect with content meaningful to them. MOOC designers also benefit when they reach those learners (who are arguably hardest to reach), which makes them a better, more responsible designers.
MOOC designers need to approach their global audience with a new len. Learners of diverse backgrounds are assets as they bring their own valuable cultural and community experiences.
I believe that if MOOC designers indeed intend to reach the greatest number of participants worldwide (which is in fact Coursera’s mission statement), they have a responsibility to ensure their design is continuously responsive to the race, class, culture, ethnicity and language of participants. It is based on the knowledge and active use of learners’ backgrounds and cultural experiences to create and deliver content, ensuring that all students are successful in a MOOC learning environment.
A MOOC in many ways is like a microcosm of society. To create a society where we are all valued, I think we must work to ensure that our online learning environments provide sufficient space that promote and embrace diversity.